AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Court had no jurisdiction

26th November 1998
Page 23
Page 23, 26th November 1998 — Court had no jurisdiction
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Twelve drivers and their employer, Delta Distribution, of Burscough, were cleared of alleged drivers' hours and tachograph offences after Rochdale magistrates ruled that they had no jurisdiction to hear the allegations. Seven of the drivers had been accused of falsifying tachograph charts.

For nine of the drivers, John Heaton said the summonses alleged the offences were committed at places "unknown in Great Britain but first came to the attention of a constable in Rochdale". He argued that the court could not have jurisdiction to consider these matters as the alleged offences might have been committed in Scotland.

Asking permission to amend the summonses to read "in England and Wales", Derek Artis, prosecuting, said the proceedings arose out of an examination of tachograph charts supplied by the company for all the drivers it employed. The amended summonses would allege the same offences and there would be no injustice to the defendants.

As far as the falsification allegations were concerned, Artis added, the venue was irrelevant to jurisdiction. The tachograph charts in relation to each driver showed the place where the journey in question started and finished. All these points were in England and Wales.

Arguing that the summonses could not be amended, Heaton said the prosecution, by seeking to do so, was acknowledging the error.

Although any court in England and Wales could try offences involving the falsification of tachograph records anywhere in those two countries, they had no jurisdiction to try offences committed in Scotland.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus